354                                            Vetoes

April 4, 1956.

Honorable Louis L. Goldstein
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. President:

I am returning herewith, without my signature, Senate Bill No. 148.

This Bill is identical with House Bill No. 4, passed during the
Special Session of the General Assembly on March 8th, and which
is now Chapter 10 of the Acts of 1956.

Therefore, Senate Bill No. 148 is vetoed.

Sincerely,

(s) Theodore R. McKeldin,

Governor.
TRMcK/tk

House Bill No. 25—Economic Development

AN ACT to change the title of Article 88C of the Annotated Code
of Maryland (1951 Edition), to be "State Planning and Develop-
ment Commission"; to repeal and re-enact, with amendments,
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of said Article of the Code; Section 2 there-
of to be under the new sub-title "Department of Research and
Planning"; to add new Section 1A to the said Article and Code,
to follow immediately after Section 1 thereof; to repeal Sections
6 and 7 of the said Article and Code, and to enact in lieu thereof
new Sections 6, 7 and 7A AND 7B to stand in the place and stead
of the sections so repealed and to be under the new sub-title "De-
partment of Economic Development"; reconstituting the State
Planning Commission to be the State Planning and Development
Commission, with a Department of Research and Planning and a
Department of Economic Development, relating to the powers and
duties thereof and generally revising and amending the laws re-
lating thereto.

April 4, 1956.

The Honorable John C. Luber

Speaker of the House of Delegates                                                 

State House                                                                                   

Annapolis, Maryland                                                                     

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am returning unsigned House Bill 25 which was passed by the
1956 Session of the General Assembly for the purpose of expanding
the State Planning Commission into two Departments and changing
its name to the State Planning and Development Commission.

The bill proposed to establish a Department of Research and Plan-
ning which, in the main, would continue the functions presently per-
formed by the Planning Commission.

It would have added the Department of Economic Development.

I am opposed to this expansion for various reasons, any one of
which would have sufficed for this veto, and which, I hope will, in